Saturday, April 19, 2014

Abduction and Hypnosis: a Letter from the Past.

I have reservations about this post.

I've had a copy of the following letter for a few years, don't know how many other folks have read it, and don't know whether it's published anywhere. It makes a strong statement about alleged UFO abductions of a certain type.

This will be controversial. I've not put it on the blog before now because I know that it will irritate colleagues, even some friends of mine. We all, every day, make these sorts of decisions: what to say and what to leave alone. I'm going to try to say very little myself and just let the letter writer speak.

This is, as you will see, a person who has earned an opinion.

The following is merely a full transcript of this letter, written to Ted Bloecher in 1977. The author was writing him to mention a case involving a husband and wife in Connecticut, which Ted was interested in learning more about.

"Dear Ted,

Here is a case, if you're interested - complete with everything. I would put it in the contactee-type but Gail had hypnosis with Jim Harder last year and as a result told of being taken from bedroom on board a ufo when she was about 12 or 13 years old. She became a contactee. The interesting thing is recently her husband joined her and he believes he is one also.Apparently they use self-hypnosis and believe that they are receiving earth-shattering information about ufos - their term, complete with descriptions of aliens, messages, and he is somewhat upset for she reads his mind, and always knows what he is doing, although innocent.They had contacts with one investigator, who, after a while was walking around with a Bible under his arm, and muttering about the devil. However in the past, a high rate of ufo sightings occurred behind their home - and they have seen numerous ones, including landed ones.I have never met them personally, but have talked for fairly long periods of time via phone. They are looking for reassurance that they are not crazy - of course, they are not. But they have done damage to themselves - how many I have worked with! A person has a fairly good sighting, and somehow he gets trapped into thinking he is a contactee - he is connected with ufos in some way, so his friends make all kinds of suggestions - meditation, self-hypnosis - and the person goes on to drag out of his own mind all kinds of weird, nonsensical thinkings which he begins to believe. It takes two to three years of actively working with this type of person to get them back on their feet - to trace back every thought and how it originated. At the moment I do not have the time; also distance involved to work with them by phone would be too expensive. Unfortunately, thousands are brain-washing themselves thru readings contacts and in some areas attendance at training sessions to put themselves in this unhappy situation. While others are making them, I am curing them. But I can not come out and tell them what is happening to them - they must learn to realize this themselves, and to pinpoint some basic need which is being satisfied by this, a real human need of being special in some way. The same kind of situation happened with Marianne, but fortunately she is cured now, and I was able to protect her from investigation until we had this success. We do not have this type of situation in NH. Maybe because people who have close contact, get in touch with me. It would be appreciated if you could contact them -- is it ok for me to give them your address?Sincerely,Betty Hill."

I'm going to say the minimum that I can shut myself up to say, and let this simmer.

1). Betty Hill had earned her opinion, particularly by 1977;

2). She uses the term "contactee" in her own broadly-conceived way [again, remember that this is 1977]. She includes any UFO encounter claimant who believes that these very close interactions are occurring to them all the time or "regularly." Whether "pleasantly informational" or just repetitively intrusive, she is concerned about people talking themselves into WAY more than what has actually happened to them;

3). Elsewhere, I have read Betty taking to task not only the self-hypnotizers [or even trusters in hypnogogic state imagery or dream memories], but particularly the, for her, abusers of bad and shallow unprofessional hypnosis techniques, who in her view were producing false beliefs in people who had certain personal and to-be-taken-seriously needs ... but which were not truly UFO related.

Historically, Betty did not know that she was talking to a Ted Bloecher who would take her views quite seriously [as he did everything which had any sense to it], but who also would find his flexibility of thought gradually eroded by the arrival in his research life [in a little over a year] of a UFO experiencer who would become the leading abductions hypnotist of all time.

I am probably in trouble with a lot of people now [if they meditate on the theoretical and actual consequences if Betty's views are correct], but ... well, I'm old and can try to just drift off into the sunset on this subject. For some colleagues, it might clarify a little more why I have been an appreciator of cases like Betty and Barney's, or Buff Ledge [and a few others] without being a fan of the mass of modern abduction/regular contact claims.

27 comments:

I applaud your courage to post Betty's letter. I have had a lot of experience in the topics and concerns that Betty's letter raises and I totally concur with what she wrote. Hypnosis has no business being conducted by anyone who is not a licensed professional such as a psychologist or a psychiatrist. There are three critical considerations here: the care of the individual, guaranteed confidentiality, and no possibility of exploitation.

The exploration of UFO alien abductions has become so contaminated with confabulation and confusion with other types of human experience that it has become extremely difficult to separate what is truly the core experience and what is not.

Betty is right when she says "…I can not come out and tell them what is happening to them – they must learn to realize this themselves, ..."

Too many people are getting hurt by unprofessional UFO investigators. The relationship of UFOs, abduction and hypnosis is not a game and shouldn't be treated as such. Betty and Barney did the right thing after their UFO experience. They went to a licensed professional who treated them with dignity, care, and confidentiality. Because of that care, they were able to process what happened to them in order to heal from it and move forward.

Good to hear from you as always. Betty's letter has been "burning a hole in my pocket" for a long time. I hope putting it out there gets all sorts of folks to become as thoughtful as possible about their own and others' situations.

Thanks for posting this letter, Professor. It's a great service to give access to these documents.

I don't think you should have any concern. Betty's opinions about abductions are well-described in two chapters of her 1995 book, A Common Sense Approach to UFOs, where she characterises most of them as fantasies. Her view is also discussed fully in her interview with Peter Brookesmith (Fortean Times 110, May 1998 -- see link below). But this letter has special significance to me: it shows her opinions were not formed late, that they can't be knocked down as a mere jealous reaction to the sensational claims (and media deals) of Hopkins-Jacobs-Strieber. Betty's letter was written before any of those gents put out a single book.

Alas, many people still might be shocked at Betty's views, but that is only because abduction proponents never discuss what Betty thought about what came after her (Kathleen Marden is pretty silent about this too!) The proponents have the data they like; the rest they ignore (or don't even care to look for). After all, the fandom goes wild when investigators take a whack at the Phil Klass pinata -- they wouldn't cheer a fight against Betty Hill herself (though she would have been up to it, I suspect).

I recommend Betty's book to anyone (though the price of getting it online is quite dear). Half the book is wild stories, half is common sense indeed -- common sense you won't hear repeated by many in the UFO community. I also recommend the skeptical abduction books put out by respected UFO investigators Kevin Randle and Chris Rutkowski (books rarely cited in the UFO literature).

> She uses the term "contactee" in her own broadly-conceived way [again, remember that this is 1977].

A product of its time. Hynek referred to the Hills as contactees in The UFO Experience. He did not use it as a pejorative then, as we do now.

> I have been an appreciator of cases like Betty and Barney's, or Buff Ledge [and a few others] without being a fan of the mass of modern abduction/regular contact claims.

Whether one believes them or not, the early cases are impressive for their uniqueness of detail, which makes them feel like the experiences of real individuals. Certainly, the experiencer is the focus of the story. What came later was slowly homogenised -- perhaps to make them seem as corroborating each other. What we get is the investigator's voice supplanting those of the subjects.

"The author was writing him to mention a case involving a husband and wife in Connecticut, which Ted was interested in learning more about," and given some of the details in Betty Hill's letter, isn't Hill referring to Betty Andreasson Luca and her second husband, Robert Luca?

Are you aware of the public statement Bob Luca, Jr., Betty's son, issued via UFO UpDates in 2007, that what Ray Fowler wrote about in "The Andreasson Affair" (and 4 subsequent books) was based on a hoax, or fraud, largely perpetrated by Robert Luca, who manipulated his wife Betty via hypnosis into confabulating her claims of long-term and repeated "alien abduction"?

Any opinion on this case, of the Andreasson hoax, and Ray Fowler's role in this story?

Your logic is flawless, but it is not Andreasson that Betty Hill is referring to.

I'm not going to get into the Andreasson fiasco, which I have viewed, not necessarily as a full-out hoax, but as having nothing to do with UFOlogy, long before this became a fashionable position.

No matter what one thinks about Andreasson, one must never downgrade Ray Fowler's pre-Andreasson field work, by the way. His reports on "ordinary" cases are some of the best ever, AND he usually employed a team research approach involving several other NICAP Massachusetts sensible people. To bad Andreasson got so deep in his head that it derailed his superb abilities to investigate other types of encounters.

Reading and watching interviews of Betty Hill, as the years marched on, it became evident she entered into (for lack of a better term) 'new-aged' philosophies in her views of ufos and their occupants. She'd have gatherings to regularly go out to try and communicate with 'them' (ala Stephen Greer and his vectoring in of ufos with flashlights). I personally think that Betty was a life-long abductee and her psyche did the best it could to adapt and adjust to it. What was abducting her (and others) is the huge question. I'd suspect entities that are earthbound, adversarial to humans & animals and can mimic (picking up through telepathy what are latest human beliefs are--ET-centric in our modern age for example). Jinn or cryptoterrestrials as two possible examples that jump out at me. And, I'm not surprised Betty ran into an investigator who was carrying a bible around and muttering about the devil. In more recent years there have been UFO investigators who sensed this is a dark, "evil" subject when one considers what most people report (conscious recall as well as hypnosis). To think fallen angels are aliens isn't any more wackier than thinking beings from *take your pick star system* are abducting people.

As for Raymond Fowler's Andreasson series. I too think too much of his precious time was wasted on that family, though I think the first book was the best and had the most worthwhile info. I have all of his books and most are excellent. If anyone wants to read a far better (imo) book on abductions I'd recommend his The Allagash Abductions {very long, involved and complex account as well as complex background histories of synchronicity the four men had with eachother}. Just last year at a New England conference Jim Weiner and Chuck Foltz gave excellent presentations, as well as updates, to their on going experiences. [This can be found on youtube, on Chris Augustin's channel] They paid great respect to Ray as well. And, what struck me is during a Q/A at the conference some asked Weiner if there's any forewarning before an abduction. He answered, without skipping a beat, that he feels surrounded by evil.

Finally, I was amazed at the various accounts Ray put into UFO Investigator: Anatomy of a UFO Abductee. The accounts seemed too outlandish for him ,in his earlier investigative years, to publish so he edited them out of his earlier published accounts. If the people are telling the truth in these accounts we see a crossover of ufo/paranormal/spiritual/cryptid experiences. And, of course, Ray deals with his own realization and revelations about his lifelong abductions (and some family members - dating back to the early 20th C).

Okay, I've rambled enough. Ray Fowler is obviously my favorite investigator! Heck, I'm from Massachusetts and he put us on the map when it comes to our state UFO 'flaps' and abductions.

Susan, without evidence, that sounds rather dogmatic. You cannot insist Betty conform to the current form of abduction. Ufology needs to accept what Betty said -- that she is not the grandmother of modern abductions, that her aliens where not greys -- or "movie aliens," as she called them.

Post is OK if you drop the word "dogmatic." Susan's not being dogmatic, she's giving her views. I'd like the emotion-laden words to disappear when addressing a blog colleague. Example: "Susan, I'm curious as to why you think Betty's a lifelong abductee? I can't find references to her saying that, and naturally I'm interested."

Susan, I am indeed curious as to why you think Betty was a lifelong abductee. I can't find any references to her saying that in the published literature, and I have read a lot of it, including her book.

"...Betty reports that she has not been taken aboard a UFO since her initial experience..." (Omni, October 1985, p 129)

A hunch/suspicion/belief based on reading, mostly in private forums, since the late 1990s about many "abductees"/"experiencers" having conscious recall memories of their first abduction as toddlers or a bit older. And, in my own family, this has been much the case too.

Also, not too long ago I saw an interesting snippit on one of those documentaries (I do use that word loosely) about Betty's family. Interviews with older members and younger members yielded lots of anomalous experiences, including close ufo sightings and paranormal activities. The house Betty grew up in was still in the family and her grand-nieces/nephews spoke of fascinating happenings there and at other locations. This may go to the familial aspect of close encounters.

Your point, in your first post to me, about the Hill aliens not being greys may not be that important. I know of people (and have read accounts as well) who've been abducted by praying mantis-like beings and reptillian-like beings. The point is, it's not always greys.

Thanks, Susan, for your open, calm, and thoughtful response. Whether others like your intuition on this or not, I admire your willingness to speak it exactly as you mean it. It is why you are one of my favorite posters on the blog.

Prof - Thankyou for your kind words! Coming from you they mean a great deal to me! At the age of 60 now, I really don't mind expressing my thoughts on the subject though I don't do it too often. If people think my ideas are nuts, so be it. ;-)

Could I ask a really, really dumb question here, and ask just who "the Professor" is? If his identity is meant to be kept confidential, O.K. -- but, I have taken a look at this blog once in a while and found it interesting, and I just got a hint as to who "the Professor" might be, and if he is indeed who I think he is, I am REALLY impressed and will look at this blog more frequently. Sorry to disturb everybody with this.

My identity was initially {WAY back at the beginning} kept mildly hidden because in those early months I knew that I would occasionally post stories of things which happened to my family and friends {who have experienced many things worth reporting} and I thought that I would make it a little harder for knuckleheads to cause them harassment. Secondly, I saw no reason to advertise who I was, because science and the pursuit of truths is an egoless path, and many people, sadly, take the easy untrue road by labeling a person and either over-believing what the writer presents or dismissing it without honest thought. And there is no "thrill" for me to be known. I view my past explorations and writings, and this blog, as fun personally, and as service communally.

That said as explanation, this blog is read by many of my close friends, of whom I am blessed in abundance, and they have made it clear to all listening who I am, which at this stage is completely OK. Michael D. Swords, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Studies and Natural Science, Western Michigan University "at your service". As we are many years into the blog, I see no reason to ego-link it any further than it has been, and thoroughly hope that no one takes anything from it just because of who is writing here.

And... this was the only "amusement" here... a little mystery now and then is a good thing in our lives.

Professor, it's a shame that the state of affairs in ufology is so polarized that you'd even feel regret posting interesting commentary by someone who, as you say, has earned her right to at least comment on the "contactee" phenomenon.

Yes. But it's also more complicated than that, and more like "ordinary" life. When you are involved with something for many years, you get to know many people. A lot of them turn out to be rather nice, whether you buy their visions of reality or not. When you know something that you are almost certain will make them feel bad or stressed, you have a hard time, if you have a heart at all, just laying it out there. I refuse to be an uncaring thug about my actions if I can possibly avoid doing so. There is a small war which takes place in any sensitive mind between serving the larger [but vaguer] truth, and caring for a friend and/or colleague [or anyone]. I believe that there are many times where almost any one of us would hold something back.

I would NOT, however, create a phony tale in regard to any such situation --- that's the line sacred in the respect of truth. I'm a guilty occasional Omitter, but not a Committer.

Thanks for publishing this, both for its inherent interest and for its important message. The comments above suggest that Betty Hill's sentiments are more in ufology's intellectual mainstream than you may have thought.

In fact, the age of ufology's abduction obsession is long gone. A cool reassessment is surely overdue, one that -- in my judgment anyway -- would be unlikely to endorse either the literalists or the denialists, though one can find plenty of ammunition for either assessment if that's what one is looking for. We ought to consider the possibility that abduction experiences not generated by prosaic causes may be genuinely anomalous, but not necessarily UFO-anomalous. The roots of the abduction phenomenon, which probably long predate the UFO era, find expression in many guises. We may be witnessing an ancient anomaly of otherworldly encounters in a passing disguise that makes sense in a culture in which "otherworldly" equates to visiting ETs in the popular imagination. Overwhelmingly, in any event, abductions are on the experience, not the event, end of the UFO spectrum.

Well, you know, Jerry, that I'm right there with you. Still exploring the "other" possibilities, though, sadly I don't have much positive hopes for the vast majority of these things having either physical or paranormal reality in the end. Hills? Yes. Buff Ledge? Yes. Walton? Probably. ... and there are quite a few handfuls of others.

In my reading of all this, only a relatively small number of cases appear to be actual event phenomena attached to the core UFO phenomenon (daylight discs, radar/visuals, CE2s, and the like). The experience phenomenon has a way of parodying its event correlate, and that is what I suspect most genuinely anomalous abduction narratives, not at their core true UFO encounters, amount to. They may be even further beyond current knowledge than "regular" UFO reports.

In my opinion we should admit only scrupulously investigated and documented abduction cases into the ufological canon, the ones that give us something to work with beyond memory and testimony. The rest is for anomalists who take a broader historical and phenomenological perspective.

It has long been my firmly-held belief that alien abduction is for the most part a purely sociological and cultural phenomenon. It reached its peak as a fad in the 1990s, not accidentally at pretty much the same time as the peak in popularity of The X-Files TV series and following publication of Strieber's best-selling "Communion" and release of a major Hollywood film based on his book.

Those eager to jump on the abduction bandwagon were exploited by a wide range of incompetents, hucksters, and charlatans and even a late well-meaning, but misguided, noted expert in psychology. A large percentage (somewhere in the high 90 percentile, I think) most likely can be totally dismissed as confabulations created during and after interaction with an "abduction researcher". There are some intriguing cases here and there, but I suspect even many of these are highly convoluted interpretations of memories of terrestrial traumas.

I remain highly ambivalent about the Hill case. On the one hand, from everything I've read I believe there was a real event experienced by both Hills. They clearly exhibited its post-traumatic effects. But, I'm not fully convinced that event was an abduction by aliens. I don't believe the Hills were intentionally lying, but rather the event was unintentionally "mis-remembered" due to the influence of as yet unknown (and likely unknowable at this late date) factors affecting their recall. Nevertheless, Betty's letter warning about the dangers of quack hypnosis to recover "memories" of alien abductions is amazingly prophetic.

Thank you. Your post is thoughtful and substantive, and doubtless reflects what many people out there feel. None of us surely see this cluster of claims precisely the same way, but this is a working hypothesis and an opening opinion well-phrased. For myself, although I had at least some of the feelings that you have back in my active traveling-about days, it was psychologically stressful to say some of this in the presence of friends who were basing their intellectual lives on the extreme vision of the claims. I'm not ready to reject all onboard experiences by a longshot, but I would only take a few select ones "to war" with me if I had to defend the ETH in front of a scientific audience.

Hello folks. I've received a posting which I have to moderate. It has good thoughts. But it also has one pointed remark about a named individual, which I don't consider proper to publish here. This gives me a conundrum: publish intact {no, I won't} or don't publish and lose the good thoughts. I'm going to "solve" this dilemma by an unorthodox means: I'm going to quote the bulk of the posting anonymously. Take it as "modified" {nothing but the accusation is lost}, or move along as you will.

The quote: "I hope the day comes when people stop looking to hypnosis as a way to find out what is happening. It has caused so much damage, not only to people in ufology, but in the satanic panic, MPD, sexual abuse areas as well. Hypnosis can bring out real memories, but it also brings out false ones, and you cannot tell the difference. It is such a dangerous tool to use ... [removed phrase] ... even with well-meaning researchers who want only the best for their clients. I hope other ways can be found to investigate these types of experiences, that are reliable, harmless to participants, and help us understand the phenomenon better."

Very responsible thoughts. I would add that it is my belief that no probing into individuals' lives by any means should be done outside of some form of professional clinical environment, which offers the potential for some group professional oversight. I understand why UFO research has been forced to be largely "lone wolf", but when things get REALLY personal, we need to incorporate secure checks and balances or not do it.

I have received a second communication related to the above. I have the same response. In addition, I should say that although I was a distant "friend" of the individual focussed upon at one time, I have not "been in touch" for well over a decade, and consider that relationship far in the past. It is not "friendship", therefore which prompts me to keep this as impersonal as possible. Although I am in true sympathy with the ethical imperative to treat all individuals with serious care and respect, specific grievances should be handled according to the institutions set up by the society for doing so, or in person-to-person direct communication.... this blog is not the place for matters bordering upon legal complaints and procedures. I assume that everyone realizes that this blog cannot involve itself in such matters in any way. If anyone does not realize the inappropriateness of that I can do nothing to improve that stance of opinion.

Well, one MORE comment has been received insisting that I make comments upon the controversy that brews elsewhere about abduction hypnosis and non-professionalism et al. This one not as polite as the well-mannered lady who wrote the first two. I'm going to say this once more in different words in the hopes that people will get off my butt about speaking out on things that I am no expert on.

1). I'm NO HYPNOSIS EXPERT!!! Quit trying to make ME comment on it. The letter posted was Betty's view and I respect her as having earned that opinion.2). I'm NO EXPERT ON THE INCIDENTS THAT YOU PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO GET ME TO TAKE A SPECIFIC STANCE UPON!!! Please get off my back. NO ONE IS AN EXPERT ON EVERYTHING IN THIS FIELD!! Is that loud enough for you? (I apologize to the lady; she has been very civilized and respectful). 3). I don't view the mass of claimed abductions as having any importance to the areas of UFOlogy within which I work. I almost don't care about those claims. If that disappoints anyone, that's not my problem. I couldn't do anything to help out a traumatized "experiencer" anyway, as it is not my training.

This is not my area of training, expertise, work, nor experience. I make headway in UFOlogy by studying case clusters, history, science & technology. I do not study abductions, particularly single-witness bedroom-invasion-style ones, which I find fraught with alternative hypotheses with little hope of unravelment.

This is the last I'll waste my time on this insistence that I enter a controversy which is beyond my required knowledge level to have earned a strong opinion. I assume that the guy who decided to jump my ass about this is now sitting back with a satisfied grin, having run a successful internet troll, and gaining some ammo for his blog. Have a great day.

Again: to the lady involved, however, I have nothing but respect for her as to how she inquired into this on this blog.

*"You cannot insist Betty conform to the current form of abduction. Ufology needs to accept what Betty said -- that she is not the grandmother of modern abductions, that her aliens where not greys -- or "movie aliens," as she called them."*

Betty is clearly off base in a number of accounts. She had a lot of people attack and push their own opinions on her as much as she tries to claim is being done to others. The entire world is telling people to confirm to the commonly accepted worldview which is covering up, (and there is proof of this coverup e.g. Operation Mockingbird et al, see: Terry Hansen's Missing Times, etc - Bluebook's initial efforts to derail and minimize while sending up real cases into highly classified areas w/ JANAP 146 - see:USAF Manual 55-11)

I think the bottom line here though, is if you want to use Betty's "truths" she's developed, than you also accept her belief in crashed bodies, a UFO reality and abduction reality (however limited she believed it was.) And I'd then remind you it only takes ONE case, that's it. One single case to prove Aliens exist, they are here, they are a reality and the truth embargo needs to be lifted.

You want talk about investigators 'damaging' people, the truth embargo damages people. There is a massive cognitive dissonance in the world today, and its because major truths are being hidden, subjects are covered up or manipulated to ruin lives, careers, social standings, etc if people if bother to take them seriously. That's who is to blame. And when you accept the fact that the cover-up is for a very specific reason, well intended, and there are very strong evidences to suggest visitation, it than becomes very questionable to why it needs to be covered up, and people are working so hard to discredit others in the field.

Betty said in the article: I've got UFO reports from the Pentagon, from the CIA, the FBI, the military.

Does she mean personally? If she was in contact with military or intelligence than any ideas she was forming on the subject is just plain poisoned. It happens to anyone who allows themselves to open up to these disastrous people. Look at the damage Richard Doty has caused over the years. The disinformation campaigns are meant to make everyone believe something differently, or off base, or minimize realities.

*"What we get is the investigator's voice supplanting those of the subjects."*

Yeah, no. If you go over the work of all of the researchers, Mack, Jacobs & Hopkins, there are commonalities between all of them. There were changing themes over the course of time they investigated the cases. There was medical evidence to show it was a reality (scoop marks, radiation burns, surgical marks, and while controversial implants)-which always came back inconclusive but it could be technology 1000s of years ahead of us. For instance we could put harmless radiological agents in Ancient Greeks and track their movements, were we able to go back in time. A natural agent.

The claim that its all confabulation and it differs between researchers is just false. Im not sure if you made it or someone else; I think it was in the article as well. Mack focused on cerebral cases because of his field of science. They all focused on certain things, but noticed similarities in all the cases. They all had different interpretations! which is entirely reasonable. Of course people interpret it differently. But they were getting similar experiences out of all their subjects. Id also point out that along with a mental block people experience, many report false memories, "protection memories" so even the first time they remember something (with or without hypnosis there are cases of both types) they might remember hanging out with dead relative. If they remember being on a ship or with aliens, they might remember tall spiritual beings with, with love & light, but suddenly the facade breaks down and recall the most horrible experiences.

It only takes a single case without hypnosis, (which exist), it only takes a single case with unexplainable medical events (which there are-see below), it really only takes a single case to prove this is a reality, and once you concede that reality you are then left with a insurmountable problem. If one case is real, what then makes the rest false, your simpleton bias? really, that's it... It also means the government needs to lift the truth embargo. A single case. Meaning 99.9% of all contact could be fake, but 1 s-i-n-g-l-e case is real, aliens exist, they've been here, our paradigm needs to shift, Copernican revolution. Let's go.

re:medical - a couple cases come to mind. There have been woman who went in for surgery to learn they were missing an ovary. Doctors asked when was this surgery done, as they didn't list it in med histories. The woman was distraught. While being put under just before passing out she said "must be the aliens." A woman who was dead pan serious about most issues and rejected even simple discussions about ET. I believe this is not isolated either, a few very similar to that exist. A case where a guy got radiation burns on his lungs, in such a manner its physically impossible for him to have got it anywhere he could've been. The beings that did it said "sorry" to him and explained an accident happened. He had (little possible) treatment for years for it before dying. I believe he was investigated by a nuclear energy agency because the damage implied he must've had access to materials that would be capable of making WMDs. It was very serious. Zero explanation could be given.